Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27785347›Full record

ArticleBiology of sex differences2016

Sex and gender in medical education: a national student survey.

Marjorie R Jenkins, Alyssa Herrmann, Amanda Tashjian, Tina Ramineni, Rithika Ramakrishnan, Donna Raef, Tracy Rokas, John Shatzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology of sex differences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Should we consider gender aspects in pharmacology teaching? No-we must!Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Sex and Gender in Orthopaedic Research: How Do We Continue to Move the Needle?The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume · 2024
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Marjorie R JenkinsTexas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health, 1400 Coulter Ave, Amarillo, TX 79106 USA.
Alyssa HerrmannAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY USA.
Amanda TashjianAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY USA.
Tina RamineniAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY USA.
Rithika RamakrishnanAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY USA.
Donna RaefTexas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Laura W. Bush Institute for Women's Health, 1400 Coulter Ave, Amarillo, TX 79106 USA.
Tracy RokasBelmont University, Nashville, TN USA.
John ShatzerJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGender- and sex-specific medicine is defined as the practice of medicine based on the understanding that biology (dictated by sex chromosomes) and social roles (gender) are important in and have implications for prevention, screening, diagnosis, and treatment in men and women. In light of the many ways that sex and gender influence disease presentation and patient management, there have been various initiatives to improve the integration of these topics into medical education curriculum. Although certain schools may include the topics, their impact on the student body's knowledge has not been as fully studied. By studying the opinions of US allopathic and osteopathic-enrolled students on the extent to which their schools address these topics and their understanding of these topics, this study examined the role of gender specific medicine in the US medical school curriculum.

methodsAn email solicitation with link to an anonymous survey was sent to approximately 35,876 student members of five US medical student organizations. The survey instrument consisted of yes/no, multiple choice, and attitude awareness questions. Data was analyzed as a complete data set to evaluate national trends and via subset analysis using chi-square, paired

resultsA total of 1097 students responded. The majority of respondents strongly agreed that sex and gender medicine (SGBM) improves patient management (96.0 %) and should be included as a part of the medical school curriculum (94.4 %). Only 2.4 % of participants agreed that SGBM is the same as Women's Health. When asked specifically about inclusion of an identified sex and gender-based medicine curriculum at their institution, students answered not sure at 40.8, 25.1, 19.1, and 20.3 % from first year to fourth year, respectively. Males reported a higher rate of exposure to SGBM content areas (in medical history taking, domestic violence) than women.

conclusionsMedical students recognize the differentiation between SGBM principles and women's health, and understand the translational value of sex and gender-specific principles in the clinical setting. However, current curricular offerings fall short of providing students with adequate coverage of specific evidence-based health differences.

Identifiers

PMID27785347
PMCPMC5073801

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.